X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Decided and Entered: July 19, 2007 501821 ________________________________ CHARLES BOUTON et al., Respondents, v HENRY T. WILLIAMS, as Trustee of the ROCK LEDGE HUNTING CLUB TRUST, Appellant. ___________________________ Calendar Date: June 6, 2007 Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ. __________ Catherine Charuk, Kingston, for appellant. Riseley & Ball, Kingston (Lawrence E. Ball of counsel), for respondents. __________ Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Work, J.), entered August 16, 2006 in Ulster County, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ parcel of land is accessible from a public road by traversing a “woods road” (hereinafter the roadway) across an adjoining parcel of land owned by defendant. After defendant denied them access in 2005, plaintiffs commenced this action to establish that they have acquired a prescriptive easement over the roadway. When Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, this appeal ensued and we now reverse. To establish a prescriptive easement, it is necessary for plaintiffs to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that their use of the roadway was adverse, open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for the 10-year prescriptive period (see Goldstein v Jones, 32 AD3d 577, 581 [2006], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 939 [2007]; Cole v Rothe, 18 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2005]; Alexy v Salvador, 217 AD2d 877, 879 [1995]). While the starting year of use is disputed here, plaintiffs assert that they began using the roadway in 1982, and there is no dispute that the use was adverse, open and notorious. Defendant contends, however, and we must agree, that there is evidence that the installation of a locked, wooden gate across the roadway between two posts set in concrete by his predecessor-in-interest in November 1990 interrupted plaintiffs’ use of the roadway. Inasmuch as a substantial physical barrier that successfully interrupts use for any period of time stops the running of the prescriptive period (see 4 Powell, Real Property, Easements and Licenses § 34.10 [3] [b]; compare Posnick v Herd, 241 AD2d 783, 785 [1997]), we find a material question of fact precluding summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ assertion that the gate was left unlocked serves only to create a question of fact as to whether it successfully interrupted their use. As for the period subsequent to the alleged 1990 interruption, there is also a question of fact as to whether, as defendant alleges, plaintiffs acknowledged defendant’s title and their use became permissive by offering to purchase an easement as early as 1998 (see Beretz v Diehl, 302 AD2d 808, 810 [2003]). Accordingly, the issue of whether a prescriptive easement was created should be resolved at trial (see Goldstein v Jones, supra at 581; cf. Caswell v Bisnett, 50 AD2d 672, 673 [1975], lv denied 38 NY2d 709 [1976]). Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
April 25, 2024
Dubai

Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.


Learn More
April 29, 2024 - May 01, 2024
Aurora, CO

The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.


Learn More

A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...


Apply Now ›

We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...


Apply Now ›

We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...


Apply Now ›
04/15/2024
Connecticut Law Tribune

MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS


View Announcement ›
04/11/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
04/08/2024
Daily Report

Daily Report 1/2 Page Professional Announcement 60 Days


View Announcement ›